The war being fought in the Middle East is a two-sided conflict that has cost over 1,300 people their lives. Over the past two weeks, we fear that the battle taking shape here at Cornell is mirroring that conflict all too well, pitting people against each other as groups go head to head in debate. The war in Gaza must stay in Gaza and Cornell must recognize it is not a battleground for partisan action but is rather an academic environment where multifaceted thought should prosper.

To say that the events that played out on the Arts Quad last week simply raised awareness of the crisis would be naïve. The silent battle was fought for all to see and indeed, we all took notice. But the protest turned a deaf ear to the intelligent voices that were stifled by aggressive tactics of counter-protest. If we learned one thing from the Gaza display last week it was that Cornell is a hotbed for reactionary debate.

To take a stance on an issue — even a controversial issue as polarizing as Gaza — does not mean to go against another’s views. Academia feeds off of intellectual diversity and thus fosters disagreement, but disagreeing is far from condemning opposition.

Last night’s panel discussion — sponsored by Hillel, IAJ, CIPAC and The Sun — was a mere glimpse of the productive dialogue that we need. The Cornell community gathered to hear three professors speak about the crisis without taking a definitive political stance on the issues at hand. Their insight was impressive, but what really inspired us was the discussion raised by those in the audience.

What is the role of Iran in the conflict? How does the destruction seen in Gaza pale in comparison to the devastation we’ve seen in other parts of the world, such as the Congo and Darfur? How does the University thwart academics from pursuing such controversial issues such as Middle Eastern politics?

It was these questions that began to appease our concerns. Such pursuits may have been seemingly controversial in the issues they touched on, but the moderate approach to both asking and answering these questions proved that we as a community are more than capable of taking an intellectual stance on the conflict in Gaza — a stance that doesn’t paint the issues as black or white, Pro-Israeli or Pro-Palestinian.

These two-hours gave us small hope that there is potential for productive dialogue on the subject, but we are still apprehensive. As Prof. David Patel acknowledged, “People come at [the conflict] with a certain idea and then pick the evidence they want that supports their ideas.” Such a notion inhibits innovative ideas and further polarizes already established “sides” of the debate. Rather, we should see students raising questions like the ones raised last night that will spur new perspectives that diverge from the head to head battle we see playing out in the Middle East.

The evening brought to light that while civility may be maintained in a moderated forum, the debate currently unfolding on Cornell’s turf is still laden with reactionary sentiments. Fostering a second war here is counter-productive. Let’s leave the fighting for the battlefield and preserve the sanctity of academia.